Well theres nothing wrong with that , in fact Apple needs to File a complaint with the police anyway , if Apple wants the police involved

But sure is an interesting story

Actually, there is something quite wrong with it. While Apple has every right to to file a complaint, press charges, etc, NO individual or corporate entity has any business directing or pressuring law enforcement in the carrying out of their duties. Ever. If there's an issue with stagnation or delay in the carrying out of those duties, then that's a job for those higher up or maybe in different channels. That didn't happen here, and public service shouldn't be bought by private interests. EVER. That it actually happens should be more of a wake-up call to us than it is.

Originally Posted By: FSM

...if i was Apple i would have also notified the police and pressed charges. beyond that, it's a police matter. meh.

EXACTLY.

_________________________“Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."

While Apple has every right to to file a complaint, press charges, etc, NO individual or corporate entity has any business directing or pressuring law enforcement in the carrying out of their duties.

In what way do you feel Apple directed or pressured law enforcement in this case? I haven't heard or read anything indicating they did anything other than file a complaint and provide police with information regarding the prototype unit and other details of the case ...

Uhm, you read the article, right?Apple put a bit of a squeeze on law enforcement. How much of a squeeze is a matter of debate, unless you were there when it happened, and I certainly wasn't. Of course, law enforcement has the authority to determine for themselves how much force is necessary to accomplish a given task, and they should be held accountable for those decisions, ultimately, but even so, a corporation shouldn't be able to pressure law enforcement, by any amount or means.

_________________________“Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."

Uhm, you read the article, right?Apple put a bit of a squeeze on law enforcement.

Define "a bit of a squeeze" -- All the article says is that "Apple pressed" for an investigation. I think I would press for one, too, if something of mine had been stolen. I would imagine the police feel some amount of pressure from every single person who files one to investigate their complaint. The question here is wether Apple "pressing" for an investigation represents undue "pressure" or rather is something merely appropriate for the circumstances.

Again, I'm not seeing where Apple pressured law enforcement into doing anything they wouldn't have ordinarily done, or where Apple pulled any particularly special strings to get what they wanted ... (except for the C-4 incident, which I admit was slightly over the top ;-)

Uhm, you read the article, right?Apple put a bit of a squeeze on law enforcement.

Define "a bit of a squeeze" -- All the article says is that "Apple pressed" for an investigation. I think I would press for one, too, if something of mine had been stolen. I would imagine the police feel some amount of pressure from every single person who files one to investigate their complaint. The question here is wether Apple "pressing" for an investigation represents undue "pressure" or rather is something merely appropriate for the circumstances.

Again, I'm not seeing where Apple pressured law enforcement into doing anything they wouldn't have ordinarily done, or where Apple pulled any particularly special strings to get what they wanted ... (except for the C-4 incident, which I admit was slightly over the top ;-)

Again, the prototype had been returned and details already leaked to the public. There was no need to break into the man's house, and no manner of Apple-fan psychological gymnastics changes that. It was overkill. While the police may feel pressure during an investigation, it is their job, responsibility, and area of expertise to exercise restraint and keep that pressure in check, rather than having it the other way around. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone of sound reason that it was 'appropriate' to break into a man's house and remove his computers from the premises in this situation. If higher ups in the legal food chain are bringing such decision-making into question (and, AGAIN, they are), then this is more than a few armchair lawyers, activist groups (think EFF and the like), and Apple-bashers raising a prejudiced stink. This is something which needs deep examination.

Originally Posted By: zwei

i heard steve jobs attached C4 to the door personally …then shouted "yippee kaiyaee mother…" as half the building went down

He may as well have. In the military, we had a cliche for not overdoing something to dramatic degree- "Don't nuke it."

_________________________“Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.